433 research outputs found
Nellix EVAS system in concomitant iliac aneurysm
No full textThe purpose of this book is to assess the efficacy of the Nellix endoprosthesis in the treatment of patients with AAA, underlining the characteristics, the modalities of implantation, all the possible indications according to the IFUs suggested by the manufacturer and outside the same, the limits related to the implant and the monitoring procedures during the follow-up of the treated patients. Only long-term results will allow a complete and definitive assessment on the real possibilities of use of Nellix, but the data collected from the current experiences of the single centers and those of the trials are very encouraging and promising for an adequate and safe use of this endoprosthesis in the treatment fo aortic aneurismal disease
L’occupazione bellica nel diritto internazionale contemporaneo : brevi considerazioni a margine di una recente sentenza della Corte Suprema di Israele
No full textAfter a brief explanation of the main gaps and loopholes of the existing regulatory framework on belligerent occupation, the paper focuses on the judgement of the Israeli Supreme Court in the Silwad Municipality case (9 June 2020). This concerned the annulment of the “Law on the Regulation of Settlements in Judea and Samaria”, which had been enacted by the Knesset in 2017. On the one hand, the paper examines how in its most recent practice the Israeli Supreme Court diminished its references to norms of international law in decisions that regard the Occupied Territories, whilst it increased its reliance on Israeli constitutional law. On the other hand, from a de lege ferenda perspective, the paper aims to investigate to which extent (if any) it is possible to halt the overall decline of rules of international law on belligerent occupation and to strengthen its status among occupying Powers and their domestic courts
Giuseppe Palmisano (ed.), Il diritto internazionale ed europeo nei giudizi interni (International and European Law in Domestic Courts), Napoli, Editoriale Scientifica, 2020, pp. 564
No full textThe U.S. Sanctions Against ICC personnel: Just an Aberration Attributable to a Now-Defunct, Populist Regime? = Le sanzioni degli Stati Uniti contro i funzionari della Corte Penale Internazionale: solo un atto aberrante attribuibile ad un “regime” populista ormai defunto = Las sanciones de Estados Unidos en contra de los funcionarios de la Corte Penal Internacional: ¿Sólo un acto aberrante atribuible a un “régimen” populista ya fallecido?
No full textIl 1° Aprile 2021, il Presidente degli Stati Uniti, Joseph R. Biden, ha revocato l’Executive Order (E.O.) 13928, che era stato adottato dal suo predecessore, Donald J. Trump, l’11 giugno 2020 per sanzionare quei funzionari non statunitensi della Corte penale internazionale coinvolti nell’indagine sui presunti crimini di guerra commessi, tra gli altri, dal personale militare statunitense presente in Afghanistan. Muovendo dall’analisi del concetto di sanzione unilaterale (o autonoma) nel diritto internazionale contemporaneo, l’articolo si propone innanzi tutto di esaminare in che misura le sanzioni adottate in forza dell’E.O. 13928 abbiano violato gli obblighi internazionali assunti dagli Stati Uniti, inclusi quelli sul rispetto delle norme sui diritti umani. In secondo luogo, ci si chiederà se l’ordine esecutivo statunitense possa essere considerato un “semplice” atto, per quanto aberrante, comunque attribuibile ad un “regime” populista ormai defunto, o se invece rappresenti il preludio di future, possibili azioni simili.On April 1, 2021, the U.S. President, Joseph R. Biden, revoked Executive Order (E.O.) 13928, which was issued by the then-U.S. President, Donald J. Trump, on June 11, 2020, to target and sanction non-U.S. staff of the International Criminal Court (ICC), after the ICC Appeals Chamber authorized the ICC Prosecutor and her team to commence an investigation of alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by, inter alia, U.S. personnel in Afghanistan. Moving from an analysis of the legal theory underlying the concept of unilateral (or “autonomous”) sanctions, the article will analyse to which extent the measures envisaged in E.O. 13298 were in violation of U.S. international law obligations, including human rights obligations; and further examine whether E.O. 13928 was just an aberration attributable to a now-defunct, populist “regime”, or if it is indeed a harbinger of what is to come
Unilateral sanctions before the General Court: Venezuela v. Council
No full textCase T-65/18 RENV, Bolivarian Republic ofVenezuela v. Council, Judgment of the General Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 September 2023, EU:T:2023:52
Belligerent Occupation and its Discontents: on the relationship between international human rights law and Belligerent’s occupation law
No full textToo many normative instances, that were originally external to the belligerent occupation’s regulatory frame- work have settled, over the last decades, into that body of law. I refer, for instance, to the Occupying Powers’ demand to intervene significantly in the economic, political and social life of the occupied territory in the light of the need to conduct populations subject to undemocratic regimes, or in very backward economic condi- tions, on the road to democracy and economic development; or to the expectations that the Occupying Powers fully implement some core human rights obligations incumbent upon them. However, because of the lack of useful information in the current legal framework of international humanitarian law about the scopes that should legitimately lead the activities of the Occupying Powers, these claims threatens to deprive of legal effect the statement that occupation would not implement any transfer of sovereignty to the occupant (the so called ‘sovereign-based’ approach laid down by Articles 42 and 43 of the Hague IV Regulations). After a brief expla- nation of the doctrinal foundations of belligerent occupation’s law in the broader picture of the more recent practice of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories (with specific reference to the 2017 Law for the Regu- lation of Settlement in Judea and Samaria), the Article will focus on the analysis of the relationship between international human rights law (IHRL) and belligerent occupation’s law – in particular by stressing the risks that could arise when an Occupying Power decides to act in order to implement the right to self-determination of the occupied population. The aim is to investigate not only, form a de lege lata perspective, how the more recent practice of Occupying Powers has been influenced by IHRL but also, from a de lege ferenda perspective, to which extent (if any) human rights norms would contribute to fill the gaps and loopholes of the existing regulatory framework on belligerent occupation
Il nuovo strumento anti-coercizione europeo e il futuro assetto dei rapporti tra l’Unione europea e l’Organizzazione mondiale del commercio
No full textThis article examines the new Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI) adopted by the European Union (EU) in December 2023 as a response to the growing trend of economic coercion in international trade relations. It analyses the origins and key features of the ACI, which allows the EU to impose countermeasures against third countries that engage in economic coercion against the EU or its member states. Then it highlights potential incompatibilities between the ACI and World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, particularly with regard to the exclusivity principle under Article 23 of the WTO Dispute Settlement Under- standing and the justification of the ACI’s response measures as countermea- sures under general international law. The article concludes by arguing that the unilateral nature of the ACI could have significant implications for the future relationship between the EU and the WTO. It also suggests that the EU’s initiative reflects a broader shift towards economic security considerations taking precedence over free trade principles in the current geopolitical land- scap
The United Kingdom’s Involvement in 2003 Iraqi War: jus ad bellum and jus in bellum issues before the Iraqi (Chilcot) Inquiry
No full textThe Report of the Iraq (Chilcot) Inquiry was published on 6 July 2016. The Inquiry was a very vast and complex undertaking both in scope (it aimed to scruti- nize UK policy decisions linked to the 2003 Iraq war adopted in the period 2001- 2009) and in size (the Report comprises 12 volumes which ran to over 2.6 million words). By way of contrast, the aim of this short comment is very limited as it ex- amines only a few sections of the Report, namely those concerning the decision to go to war (sections 5, 6.5, 9.1, 9.2 and 9.8) and the period of belligerent occupation (sections 10.1 and 10.3)
- …
